The gospels provide us with
three different versions of the last words uttered by Jesus on the cross.
The clearest and simplest presentation is that of John (19:30):

As
Jesus took the wine, he exclaimed: ‘It is finished,’ and bowing his head,
he handed over his spirit.

It is a picture of a quiet death.
But according to Mark (15:34-35), Jesus would have

yelled
with a great shout eloi eloi lama sabachthani.

Through the centuries pious interpreters
have been puzzled by the statement of Mark that the last words of Jesus
would have been

My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me!

According to Mark, followed by
Matthew (27:46-47) who further emphasizes the element of screaming, some
of those present would have understood that he was calling for the prophet
Elijah.

In order to explain this uncertainty among the bystanders, it is necessary
to make two assumptions: that Jesus did not utter the entire sentence eloi
eloi lama sabachthani but only eloi eloi, and that those who understood
that he was calling for Elijah assumed that he was using the Greek vocative
Eli, O Elijah. Many inter­preters have observed that Hebrew speaking people
could not have confused eliyah with eli eli, since it would have been a
matter of quite different sounds accor­ding to Hebrew phonetics. Hence the
story of the misapprehension among the bystanders cannot have originated
among Palestinian Jews; it must have originated among Greek-speaking Christians.
In my view its origin is to be traced to the Christians of Rome, whose knowledge
of Hebrew must have been generally shaky.[1]

Apparently Matthew tried to improve on the rendering of Jesus’ words by
Mark. According to the best manuscripts of Matthew Jesus would have shouted
eli eli lema sabachthani. It would seem that Matthew edited the text of
Mark in order to make clear how the Hebrew My God, my God could have been
misunderstood for O Eliyah in Greek.

Luke (23:46) provides a third and different version of the last words of
Jesus:

And
shouting with a great shout Jesus said:

‘Father into thy hands I commit my spirit.’

According to Luke Jesus would
have quoted Psalm 30:6:

Into
your hands I commit my spirit.

In order to understand how three different versions of the last words of
Jesus could have originated, it must be kept in mind that in ancient tragedy
the death of the hero was not acted on the stage. It took place offstage
and was narrated by a witness, after the dying yells of the hero had been
heard from backstage. This explains why John, who based himself on the written
text of the tragedy (which omitted most stage directions) does not mention
any yells, whereas these are impor­tant to Mark and Luke who saw the tragedy
performed. John, who had before him the text of the tragedy, quoted accurately
what must have been the last words of Jesus according to Seneca. One can
be reasonably certain that these last words were peractum est, because
this was Seneca’s favorite way of marking the climax of a tragedy.

In Seneca’s Agamemnon Cassandra, who is on the stage looking into
the palace through an open door, describes the slaying of the hero as it
is taking place. When the inept Aegisthus fumbles in hitting Agamemnon,
Clytemnestra in a rage grabs an axe and strikes at the neck; at this point
Cassandra exclaims (line 901), Habet, peractum estIt [the blow] got
him, it has been completed. In Hercules on Oeta the dying Hercules
declares (line 1472): Habet, peractum est, fata se nostra explicantIt
is death, it has been completed, my fate unfolds itself. In Seneca’s Oedipus,
when the hero appears on the stage with his eyes gouged, his first words
are: Bene habet, peractum est; iusta persolvi patriIt hit me right,
it has been completed; I have paid what was due to my father. Habet
was a military expression, used also by gladiators,
which means It is a mortal blow. Peractum means carried through to
the end.[2]

Many commentators of Seneca’s tragedies point out that when a gladiator
received a mortal blow, he was supposed to declare Habet, peractum est,
It is death, it finished. It is an expression of serene and courageous acceptance
of the kind of death a gladiator may expect. Some commentators, particularly
Otto Regen­bogen, have observed that often Seneca in his works compares
human life, properly lived according to Stoic philosophy, to that of gladiators.
But the com­pa­rison with the language of gladiators, which Seneca may have
had in mind, does not suffice to explain the idea that Seneca aimed to convey
in his tragedies. By the sentence peractum est Seneca intended to stress
that the tragedy has reached its climax by a forceful voluntary action.
It is for this reason that the gospel of John links the uttering of It s
finished with the drinking of wine; if Jesus had not voluntarily taken poison,
he could not have said peractum est.

In Seneca’s Hercules on Oeta after Hercules is dead (line 841), Deianera
takes full responsibility for his death by saying Factum est scelusThe
crime is done (842). With this background we can under­stand better the
handling of the myth of Oedipus by Sophocles. When Oedipus appears on the
stage with his eyes gouged out, the chorus asks why he has performed such
an atrocious act: Oh what a terrible deed! How could you bear to quench
your eyes in this way? In a long passionate answer Oedipus proceeds

to
defend his act, to claim it as his own. He insists upon what he has done
both past and present: ‘the deeds done’; ‘what things I did’; ‘what things
I wrought again.’ Even his suffering he insists is his own: ‘For those
afflictions are mine and no man can take them up but me’ (1414).[3]

Alister Cameron, whose com­men­tary
on King Oedipus I have just quoted, explains that by gouging out
his eyes Oedipus ceased to be a victim and became

the
true center of action, as after all, the actor in this terrible business...

It
is given to the blinded hero who dominates the stage to declare himself
the actor.

In his Oedipus Seneca followed the interpretation of Sophocles and,
with his peculiar gift for epigrammatic expression, summed it up by let­ting
Oedipus declare Bene habet, peractum estIt is a perfect hit; it has
been completed. Bene habet could be rendered as It is just what I
wanted. If Oedipus had not blinded him­self he would have ap­peared as a
victim, either of fate or of some faults of his charac­ter. It is the thesis
of Philip Vellacott that it is impossible to under­stand this play as a
tragedy unless one puts at the center the concept of grief self-chosen.
The author observes that

One
of the problems that have taxed the resour­ces of writers on this play
is to explain how the story can be called truly a tragedy and not a mere
sensational disaster.[4]

The answer to the problem can be found in the words of the messenger who
relates the climax of the tragedy taking place off­stage, just prior to
the appearance of the blinded Oedipus on the stage:

Of
all griefs, those that are revealed as self-chosen hurt the most.

In the light of the self-inflic­ted
blind­­ness all previous events in the life of Oedipus, including the parricide
and the incestuous marriage, appear as the result of choice.

Following the same line of reasoning, the fact that Jesus asked for poison
and said Peractum est implies that the entire passion of Jesus is self-chosen
suffering. According to Seneca, if Jesus had not deci­ded to ask for poison,
one would have seen him as a victim: a victim of the hostility of Jewish
leaders, of the politics of Pilate, and further of the treachery of Judas
and the wavering of Peter. By asking for poison, Jesus changed the entire
passion into a voluntary act, which was the fulfillment of his entire life,
the crowning of his mission.

According to Seneca Hercules too says Habet, peractum est like Oedipus.
The parallel between Hercules and Jesus is more obvious.[5] Hercules, who
has liberated mankind from the fear of death, seems to be defeated as he
is dying because of the atrocious burns caused by Nessus’ robe, but then
Hercules asks to be placed on a burning pyre, and by this action he defies
death once more and attains his place among the immortal gods.

If Jesus had not taken poison and not said Peractum est, the passion
would have been a pitiful story of a sadistic execution. When Seneca let
Jesus end his life with the words Peractum est, he made a point that
was perfectly clear to those who were fami­liar with ancient drama. But
all the learned associations that those words called to mind in an educated
Roman audience were completely lost on a Christian audi­ence accustomed
to a different universe of discourse. They understood that Jesus was quoting
the final words of Psalm 22 which are

He
[Yahweh] has acted.

For Hebrews and Christians who did not have the benefit of our division
of the scriptures into chapters and verses, passages of the Old Testament
were quoted by men­tioning the initial words and occasionally the last words.
If Jesus had died with the last words of Psalm 22 on his lips, it could
be presumed that he had quoted the entire psalm beginning with the initial
words. Some had understood earlier that his shouts from backstage were Eli,
Eli, in Greek O Elijah!; but some of the audience inferred that, if he had
quoted the end of Psalm 22, his earlier screams must have been eli, eli,
lema sabachthani, which is the beginning of this psalm in Hebrew.

In fact there was a substantial agreement between John and Mark (and hence
Matthew) on what were the last words of Jesus. But John translated them
into Greek to the letter as It has been completed, whereas Mark understood
them as a quotation of the last sentence of Psalm 22. Hence, Mark concluded
that Jesus intended to quote Psalm 22 which begins

My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

It is not difficult to explain how Luke came to give a third and different
account of the last words of Jesus. It is necessary to start with the account
of John which must be a rather literal report of what was said by the character
who described Jesus’ death on the stage. John states (19:30): As Jesus took
the wine, he exclaimed ‘It has been completed,’ and bowing his head, he
handed over his spirit. The phrase he handed over (paredoken) is
peculiar. It has been noticed by commentators that the phrase used by John
to indicate Jesus’ death does not correspond to Hebrew conceptions and does
not have parallels in Greek literature, except in the language of the tragic
writers Aeschylus and Euripides.

Many interpreters explain the phrase merely as an equivalent of the phrases
used by the other evangelists, but some recognize that John had a particular
meaning in mind, which however eludes them.[6] Only P. R. Bernard comes close to a true explanation
when he observes that the phrase used by John implies an element of voluntary
giving. [7]

The phrase used by John, handing over the spirit, is to be explained by
a use of phrasing peculiar to Seneca. In one of his letters to Lucilius
(No. 78) Seneca claims that the closeness and attachment of his friends
had freed him from the fear of death:

In
letting them survive me, it seemed that I was not dying; I thought that
I was living, if not with them, then at least through them; I had the
feeling that I was not giving out my spirit but handing it over.

The last sentence explains the phrasing used by John. Jesus did not expire,
that is, give out his spirit into the air, but handed it over as a still
living entity.

When Luke heard a character relating on the stage that the last action of
Jesus was to hand over his spirit, he understood that Jesus had actually
said something to commend his spirit. Since he inferred that Jesus in his
last gasp had quoted Psalm 30:6

Into
your hands I entrust my spirit,

these words became for Luke the
very last words uttered by Jesus, instead of it has been completed.

In conclusion, John quoted to the letter what had been said on the stage
about the last moments of Jesus’ earthly life. Mark (followed by Matthew)
understood the same words as implying that Jesus had quoted Psalm 22, and
Luke, that Jesus had quoted Psalm 30:6.

The confusion among the evangelists as to the exact words of Jesus are
due to the fact that after the end of Act II Jesus was no longer to be
seen on the stage. The crucifixion of Jesus was be described for the audience
by the usual dramatic device of the messengers, the most important of
whom was Simon of Cyrene. The fact that the crucifixion is related by
Simon explains why the gospels are so uncertain or contradictory about
which actions were to be ascribed to the soldiers, to the Jewish leaders,
or to the Jewish populace. Simon must have related: They did this to him,
or This was done to him, without indicating the specific agent, as one
could expect in a Latin narrative.

[1] The limits of Mark‘s knowledge
of Hebrew are reveald by the sentence eloi eloi lama sabachthani
which he puts into the mouth of Jesus. It is a confused rendering into
Greek lettering of the text of psalm 22:2, which reads in Hebrew eli
eli lama azabtani and in Aramaic elahi elahi lema sebaqtani.
A common explanation of this linguistic confusion offered by pious interpreters
is that Jesus spoke in Hebrew, whereas the less educated bystanders repeated
his words into Aramaic. Hebrew was no longer a spoken language and the
masses were not familiar with it, as indicated by the fact that in the
synagogues of Palestine the reading of the Old Testament was followed
by a translation (targum)in Aramaic.

[2] The elment of peractum
is so important to Seneca‘s concept of the climax of a tragedy that it
occurs as “Bellum peractum est”--“The war is over” in his Troades
(line 1167) and as “Peracta vis est omnis”--“All my power has had
full play ” in his Medea (line 843). In Latin peragere refers
to the bringing of an action to its conclusion, to its fulfillment. Peragere
vitam means to bring one‘s own life to the end of its proper course.
Cicero in his De Senectute (On Old Age) uses several times variations
on the phrase peragere fabulam “go through the last act of the
drama of life.” The verb peragere in a special sense refers also
to theatrical action and means “to act through.” The concept of peractum
est is employed by Seneca with awareness of its theatrical meaning in
Hercules on Oeta: When Deianira rushes from the scene announcing
that she is going to kill herself, her son Hyllus exlaims (line 1025):
“Peracta iam pars matris est--statuit mori”--“My mother has played
her role out: She has decided to die.”

[3] Alister Cameron, The
identity of Oedipus the King (New York, 1968),p. 116.

[6] The Jerome Bible Commentary,
for istance, recognizes that the phrase used by John has a special meaning,
but when it comes to explaining this meaning it escapes into verbiage:
“All the evangelists use aguivalent expressions, broadly the same as the
Eny ‘expire.’ Only John, however, speaks of “handing over” of his spirit,
doubtless because he intends the reader to think of the Spirit that is
given as Jesus‘ glorification (7:39; 20:23).”